MODIFICATION
R -- Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care, collaboration
- Notice Date
- 7/28/2005
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 541990
— All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Research Contracts Br., 6120 Executive Blvd. EPS Suite 600, Rockville, MD, 20852
- ZIP Code
- 20852
- Solicitation Number
- RFQ-NCI-50052-NV
- Response Due
- 8/17/2005
- Archive Date
- 9/1/2005
- Point of Contact
- Deborah Moore, Contract Specialist, Phone (301) 402-4509, Fax (301) 402-4513, - Renita Smith, Contract Specialist, Phone 301-496-8612, Fax 301-480-0241,
- E-Mail Address
-
dm170b@nih.gov, rs442i@nih.gov
- Description
- Amendment-02 for Solicitation RFQ-NCI-50052-NV is being issued to answer questions received from an interested vendor. The due date for proposal remains unchanged at August 17, 2005 at 1:00PM EDT. Question 1: Can you provide an estimated Level of Effort for this project? For example, a literature search of published and gray literature can be a very big effort in this field. Have an estimated level of effort would provide some idea of the boundary parameters (amount of effort) to devote to this type of task. Answer 1: This is a difficult question to answer as different personnel will have different levels of effort. Overall, I would expect no more than 10% of the PI’s total effort and no more than 40% of a research assistant’s total effort to be devoted to this. The literature review plan is expected to be developed and refined with input from the government. Question 2: Is this a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Deliverables contract? In this regard, in the section of the solicitation entitled Reporting Requirements: Deliverables and Payment Schedule, there is no mention of the payment schedule. Will payments be made only after each deliverable has been delivered and accepted, or monthly, based on percentage of deliverable(s) completed each month, since multiple deliverables will be worked on at the same time. If the former, is the contractor to cost each deliverable or will the contract total just be evenly divided across the eight listed deliverables? If the latter, will the one year contract be divided into 12 equal payments each month and then a monthly report to describe the percentage of completion against each deliverable? Answer 2: Any award from this synopsis/solicitation will be awarded as a fixed-price purchase order. Therefore, the contractor awarded this procurement will only get paid for what their bid is. The project officer will approve payment upon acceptance of a deliverables and payments will be divided equally among deliverables. Question 3: Clarification: In the SOW, there is a statement "Visits to each geographic area shall include an oncologist." Does this mean that each group meeting must include at least one oncologist in the interview group, or that an oncologist must be a contractor's team member on each site visit? Answer 3: Visits in each geographic area shall include a oncologist, but not necessarily each site visit or meeting will include an oncologist. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation RFQ-NCI-50052-NV includes all applicable provisions and clauses in effect through FAR FAC 2005-04. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS), Applied Research Program (ARP) plans to enter into a contract with an organization to provide literature review, interviews and site visits. The North American Industry Classification code is 541990, and the business size standard is $6M. This solicitation is NOT set-aside for small businesses. Introduction: The National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute (NCI), plans to enter into a contract for a preliminary review of information available about the safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, efficiency, timeliness, and equity of cancer care for the purposes of designing, implementing, and evaluating prototype delivery systems. This contract will support literature review, site visits, case studies, and clinician group meetings. Using a framework that outlines the objectives of cancer care, the overall focus of the project is to provide foundational information to guide the reliable translation of research evidence into practice. A particular area of interest in this solicitation is the period of cancer care from suspicion of cancer through diagnosis and plan of care. Background: The mission of the National Cancer Institute is to eliminate death and suffering due to cancer. From a health system perspective, this goal means eliminating suffering from cancer and/or the effects of interventions and improving survival for patients whose cancer care the health system provides. From a patient perspective, the goal can be more simply stated: “I get exactly the help I need, when I need it.” To make such goals more specific, an appropriate starting place and statement of objectives for design of health care processes are the six aims for health care described by the Institute of Medicine. These aims are applicable to cancer care though they must be further defined and operationalized. Increasingly, oncologists, health services researchers, and national advisory committees have focused on the need to better understand systems of care including cancer care and at many levels including patient clinician decision making (e.g., clinical practice guidelines, evidence-based practice, accurate and complete pathology services), the flow of patients and information within and across settings of care; and the effects of external environmental factors, such as reimbursement and regulation, training. Such understanding includes the effects of changes in these arenas on the outcomes of care that matter to patients and policymakers (e.g., clinical endpoints such as tumor shrinkage; survival, health-related quality of life, economic burden, patient experience of care). In the field of oncology, the need for attention to care delivery, access, and costs is made more urgent because of the pipeline of new, complex, and costly technologies. Such technologies include molecular medicine (e.g., genomics, proteomics, nanotechnology, molecular imaging) and the anticipated need to tailor many possible diagnostic and therapeutic choices, in a variety of combinations for individual patients. As in any field, new technologies in oncology bring the potential for error and patient harm as well as benefit. The complexity of oncology care requires multidisciplinary input, the transfer of patient care across settings, departments, and specialty, and the loss of information about a patient or loss of follow-up of findings will occur unless careful attention is paid to the design of systems that minimizes these events now and in anticipation of advanced molecular and information technologies. A major part of improving care delivery will rightly include a focus on creating safety systems such that current serious harms from, for example, a mis- or missed diagnosis, use of the wrong protocol or an error in implementing a protocol make the occurrence of adverse patient outcomes extremely unlikely not only in the short run, but also for survival and quality of life. In addition, informatics and health information systems have the potential for making such information available to clinical settings, linking discovery, development and delivery more quickly. Numerous studies have shown that even today, many patients throughout the United States do not receive optimal cancer care. This requirement adopts the six Aims proposed by the Institute of Medicine. That is, from a cancer care delivery perspective care should be: Safe—avoiding injuries to patients from the care that is intended to help them; Effective—providing services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit and refraining from providing services to those not likely to benefit (avoiding underuse and overuse, respectively); Patient-centered—providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions; Timely—reducing waits and sometimes harmful delays for both those who receive and those who give care; Efficient—avoiding waste, including waste of equipment, supplies, ideas, and energy; and Equitable—providing care that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status. Useful ideas, better data on the delivery of care, and a comprehensive approach to system change are needed to focus, motivate, and sustain substantial improvements. Some published and much anecdotal evidence suggests considerable variation in quality, including the appropriate use of the best evidence, skill in diagnostic and treatment interventions; involving patients in decision making throughout the continuum of cancer care; and using data about practice to improve care processes. However, it is difficult to obtain data that can be used to assess the quality and outcomes of patient care and to support the care process and quality improvement. In addition, cancer patients often find the care system confusing and advice contradictory, identifying who is in charge of their care, and have trouble having their needs met. The overall objective of the work is to identify barriers and facilitators of high quality cancer care; and identify innovative ideas for safer, and more effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable cancer care in the United States; including potential gains in each area from clinical information systems. The contractor shall conduct a literature review (both peer-reviewed and “grey” literature) on the quality of cancer care; semi-structured individual and group discussions; and site visits to a selected set of cancer care service delivery organizations. The purpose of the semi-structured discussions with key leaders and practicing clinicians and of the site visits to a variety of oncology settings is to learn from clinicians, senior leadership, health care experts, and patients about their views, gather information for improvement including innovations in care, safety-related issues, barriers to high quality care, and ideas for change, even if not already implemented. The results of this work will inform future projects intended to design and implement systems to improve cancer care services. The contractor shall synthesize finding of the literature review, discussions, and the site visits and present the findings and conclusions to the government for its use in designing cancer care prototypes. Statement of Work: Technical Requirements: A) The contractor shall submit a plan of work in the form of a Gantt chart with dates for each milestone and annotations for each milestone that includes personnel effort and other resources to be used; B) Capture and summarize what is known about cancer care quality through (A) review of published and “gray literature” on cancer care quality. Review the published peer reviewed and non peer reviewed literature in commonly used databases (e.g., PubMed, nursing, health services) and summarize the findings as a literature review with complete citations with a particular emphasis on the period of cancer care from initial suspicion through diagnosis and plan of treatment. The contractor shall acquire and review relevant articles and relevant references in those papers and search for and gather “grey” literature (e.g., reports and position papers by commissions; papers and websites of professional, health system or health plan, and advocacy organizations) on cancer care quality. The contractor shall summarize findings of the literature review and provide copies of the relevant references. An electronic draft of the summary shall be made available to the government for review and comment. C) Interview health policy experts, senior leadership and researchers. The contractor shall conduct at least 15 interviews by phone or in person. Each interview shall be scheduled for approximately 60 to 90 minutes. Interviews. Within 60 calendar days after completion of all individual interviews, the contractor shall provide a summary to the government in draft form for review and comment. D) Conduct group interviews with practicing clinicians in several oncology specialties and cancer patients and/or family members of cancer patients. The contractor shall conduct at least four group discussions, with each group organized around a specific topic or oncology specialty, for example, medical and radiation oncology, surgical oncology, oncology nursing, and/or patient/family experience. The contractor shall develop the framework for individual and group discussion and meet with the government to finalize the specific criteria required for the framework and shall provide draft guides for review and comment by the government before any interviews take place. Discussion topics for individual and/or group discussions shall include (but not be limited to) perceived barriers to high quality cancer care, information needs and gaps, and desired functions of a clinical cancer information system. Both practicing oncologists and experts in health information and information technology shall be included in discussions about integrating patient and clinical data to facilitate the flow of information across settings of care and specialties. The contractor shall include discussion about how to foster the use of health information systems for informed decision-making by patients and treating clinicians and what value this data might have for quality measurement and improvement. The contractor shall provide to the government in draft form for review and comment a summary within 60 calendar days after completion of all individual interviews and a summary of results within 60 calendar days after each group discussion. The contractor shall cover the costs of travel for its personnel and for participatents in group discussions. E) Conduct site visits. The contractor shall meet with the project officer to recommend the location and timing of site visits. In this solicitation site visit means a geographic area. A site visit may include multiple organizations. The minimum requirement is the inclusion of no fewer than three and no more than six different geographic areas for site selection with the expectation that multiple organizations will be drawn from each geographic location. Visits to each organization may vary in length from an hour to a day, and the time in a geographic location may vary in length from one to three days. Discussion topics shall include (but not be limited to) how cancer care and interactions among specialists are organized, how care is provided, why it has been developed that way, the role of health informatics, perceived barriers to high quality cancer care, information needs and gaps, and desired functions of a clinical cancer information system. Each site visit shall be summarized as a descriptive (not evaluative) case study. The draft case study with relevant background appendices shall be provided to the government for review and comment. Visits to each geographic area shall include an oncologist. The travel and any honorarium for an oncologist shall be covered under this contract. Additional site visit members (e.g., project officer) shall be included as required by the government, but their travel will be paid by the government. Before each site visit, the contractor shall provide to each organization to be visited background information on the purpose of the site visit, background information on the visitors, and any applicable letters of support from e.g., government agencies, professional, advocacy, foundations. At least seven days before each site visit, the contractor shall provide each site visitor and the government an agenda book that includes an itinerary for the visit, including names of individuals, titles, organizational addresses and contact info, background on the organizations and individuals being visited; a description of the context of each organization in the community in which it practices; information about each site visitor; a guide for site visitors that includes the topics to be discussed and expectations of their role and reporting responsibilities (e.g., debriefing). After each site visit, the contractor shall debrief the site visitors and provide a draft case summary of each organization visited to all visitors for review within 30 calendar days of its completion. After each site visit, the contractor shall prepare follow up letters and obtain any additional materials that have been offered. The contractor shall summarize and present the results of both activities to the government at the conclusion of the data gathering phase of the project. Reporting Requirements: Deliverables and Payment Schedule – A) Work plan; B) Literature Review and Interviews; C) A proposed list of site visits and the organizations to be visited during each site visit; D) A final version of the site visitor guide that incorporates review comments by the government; E) Six copies and an electronic version of the final summary of the literature review are due no later than when six calendar weeks after the final site visit is completed; F) Six copies and an electronic version of the final summary of the individual and group interviews are due no later than six calendar weeks after the final site visit is completed; G) Six copies and an electronic version of the final summary of the site visits, including case study summaries of each site visit are due no later than four calendar weeks before the end of the performance period ; H) Six copies and a final electronic version of the presentation to the steering group and final report to the government are due at the close of the contract period. Qualifications: A) Lead scientist. The contractor shall provide scientific oversight by a senior, experienced individual who is knowledgeable about cancer care in the United States. This senior scientist must identify and speak knowledgeably with leaders in the field. The contractor’s lead scientist shall have an MD or doctorate in health services. He or she should have at least five years experience as a senior investigator in the field of quality of health care research or practice improvement. The senior scientist must provide assurance that a substantial proportion of work effort will be spent overseeing and participating in this project, including at least two of the site visits. B) Key Personnel include the principal investigator and other senior scientists responsible for managing and supervising the proposed contract shall have experience in the use of health literature databases and search methods, systematic review and synthesis. Key personnel shall have experience organizing and conducting site visits for learning (not only for program evaluation). Additional experience requirements include the design of guides for and the facilitation by key personnel or a subcontractor of group interviews with health care professionals and senior administrators. Oncologists included in the site visits may be medical, surgical, and/or radiation oncology specialists and shall be approved by the government based on their experience and demonstrated interest in the organization and delivery of cancer care and experience in assessing and improving the quality of care. Evaluation criteria: Offers will be evaluated based on the following technical criteria. The technical portion of the proposal will receive paramount consideration in selecting a vendor. However, price will also be a significant factor in the event that two or more vendors are determined to be essentially equal following the evaluation of technical factors. Technical evaluation will be performed by an NCI technical review committee. The below technical evaluation criteria will be used by the Government when reviewing the technical portion of the quotation. The criteria below are listed in the order of relative importance. 1) Experience of Senior Scientist – 25%. 2) Key Personnel – 25%. 3) Quality of Previous Work (Past Performance)– 25%. 4) Understanding the Problem – 15%. 5) Overall Approach 10%. 6) Costs – is a consideration but not scored. Technical proposal: Proposals shall contain information regarding the technical approaches of the Offerors / Vendors, including the capabilities and plans of the Offerors / Vendors for provision of all of the services and products described in the aforementioned contractor requirements. Information submitted will be used in the evaluation of your quotation. Therefore, your response to this solicitation should be complete, as it must stand on its own and be responsive to all technical evaluation criteria. Evaluation Process: The Government will award a contract resulting from this RFQ to the responsible contractor whose quote conforming to the quotation will be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Provisions and clauses: The following FAR provisions and clauses apply to this acquisition: FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS FOR SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION; FAR 52.212-3, OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS – COMMERCIAL ITEM – WITH DUNS NUMBER ADDENDUM; FAR 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES, OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS-COMMERCIAL ITEMS-FOR SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION. The following FAR clauses cited in paragraph (b) of the clause at FAR 52.212-5 are also applicable to this acquisition; FAR 52.222-26; EQUAL OPPORTUNITY; FAR 52.222.35, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR DISABLED VETERANS AND VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM ERA; FAR 52.222-36, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES; FAR 52.222-37, EMPLOYMENT REPORTS ON DISABLED VETERANS AND VETERANS OF VIETNAM ERA; FAR 52.225-3, BUY AMERICAN ACT SUPPLIES; AND 52.232-34, PAYMENT BY ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER-OTHER THAN CENTRAL CONTRACTING REGISTRATIONS. Full text copies of the FAR Terms and Conditions and other cited provisions may be obtained on line at the NCI website at http://amb.nci.nih.gov or from Deborah Moore, Contract Specialist at dm170b@nih.gov or (301) 402-4509. Please note: All contractors must be registered in the Online Representations and Certifications Applications (ORCA) in order to receive an award. Please refer to http://orca.bpn.gov in order to register. In addition, contractors must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) www.ccr.gov. Offers are due August 17, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. EDT. Facsimile and email submission are NOT authorized. Offers must be in writing and should be submitted as follows: (1) one original and three copy of a completed SF 1449, signed by an individual authorized to bind the organization; (2) one original and three copies of the technical proposal; (3) copy of the contractor ORCA validation/registration; (4) acknowledgment of amendments, if any. Offers and related materials must be submitted in writing to Debbie Moore at the listed address. Offers that fail to furnish the required information or reject the terms and conditions or statement of work of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration. Please cite the solicitation number RFQ-NCI-50052-NV on your offer. Any questions must be submitted in writing and may be e-mailed to dm170b@nih.gov or faxed to 301-402-4513. It is the vendor’s responsibility to call 301-402-4509 to insure questions have been received. NOTE: THIS NOTICE WAS NOT POSTED TO WWW.FEDBIZOPPS.GOV ON THE DATE INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ITSELF (28-JUL-2005); HOWEVER, IT DID APPEAR IN THE FEDBIZOPPS FTP FEED ON THIS DATE. PLEASE CONTACT fbo.support@gsa.gov REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
- Web Link
-
Link to FedBizOpps document.
(http://www.eps.gov/spg/HHS/NIH/RCB/RFQ-NCI-50052-NV/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Country: USA
- Record
- SN00857573-F 20050730/050728213851 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |